Nothing policy related has changed regarding US gov't support for Israel since Obama was elected. No "aid" of any sort has been repealed, no legislation has been signed condemning Israel in any form, both party platforms contain pro-Israel planks, etc. So it's just another example of how the sitting Pres and the challenger are the same.

Obama's snubs don't count.

Of course the anti-semitic proclivities of the libertarian party are well known. So you must be hinting that supporting Israel is a bad thing, one way or the other. Care to be a good paulbot drone and tell me why Iran having nuclear weapons doesn't bother you?

Im still waiting for you to post up my lecture on the history of the primary system. Where is it? You obviously have enough time to whip out the tired "anti-semite" card whenever anyone dares mention US-Israeli policy so clearly you have enough time to back up your own bull **** posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygov

Does this sound like,

"Clinging to guns and Bibles"

to anyone else?

AHA once again, he is showing his admiration and support for Obama.

I know the truth hurts and you must say anything to obfuscate the greater point that the vast majority of ABO voters are simply identity politics voters that want someone that looks like them in the WH, while not caring one bit about said candidate's policy positions.

Im still waiting for you to post up my lecture on the history of the primary system. Where is it? You obviously have enough time to whip out the tired "anti-semite" card whenever anyone dares mention US-Israeli policy so clearly you have enough time to back up your own bull **** posts.

I know the truth hurts and you must say anything to obfuscate the greater point that the vast majority of ABO voters are simply identity politics voters that want someone that looks like them in the WH, while not caring one bit about said candidate's policy positions.

I just want to make sure this is absolutely clear.
Romney says if he is elected he will sign an assault weapons ban if one is brought to him. Just like george bush said he would. The republican party is not really pro-second amendment. The guy who is in favor of an assault weapons ban is the guy who will be picking supreme court justices.
Better than the dems? Sure, but not much.
I'll be voting for a guy and party that does not really support the second amendment.
I wish people would stop pretending republicans are pro-second amendment.Romney supports assault weapons ban? - YouTube

The same statement the Obama supporters keep replaying here would be a concern if Romney actually signed anti-2A bills into law, increased gun control or just even left the same amount of gun control in effect when he had the chance while Gov of MA. It was certainly politically expedient for Romney to be anti-2A with a 85% anti-2A Democrat congress, but all his actions, bills and laws show the opposite.

Like Obama, who makes pro-2A statements but all his actions are anti-2A, Romney has flown "under the radar" with the RKBA and all his actions are pro-2A.

Romney has made a few gun control statements over the years but if you actually examine his entire record it is clear Romney signed no anti-2A bills and actually reduced gun control and signed pro-2A bills into law while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006.

What politicians do is more important, and revealing, than what they need to say to get it done. Romney's record clearly shows, in the face of a veto-proof majority anti-2A congress, he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills. So Romney has already been politically tested on the RKBA and it's all pro-2A which very encouraging for gun owners.

Bush made the same kind of statements and was also labeled a threat to the RKBA. But we know now he achieved only a great deal of pro-2A legislation and appointed two pro-2A SC Justices that ruled in favor of Heller and McDonald. It's the only pro-2A strategy that works when dealing with obstructionist anti-2A legislators.

In 2008 Romney was rated "B" by the NRA and Obama was rated "F". Since then, Romney has only become more pro-2A and Obama more anti-2A. Romney would be a much better President for gun-owners than Obama.

Im not sure it's racism, per se, at least on the whole, though I know there's no shortage of that at play in much of the ABO circles.

On a deeper psychological level, people have an innate desire to relate to people that are like them. Since none of you know Obama or Romney personally, you can only go on what you see or are told. They don't espouse much different policies so you're relegated to deciding who to support based on what you can quantify. That means voting based on measures like someone's race, religion, class, height/weight/hair, etc or any single or multiple combinations of them. It's a well established political principle to play off of this phenomenon and is known as "identity politics". And it works and it's clear why it works.

Im not sure it's racism, per se, at least on the whole, though I know there's no shortage of that at play in much of the ABO circles.

On a deeper psychological level, people have an innate desire to relate to people that are like them. Since none of you know Obama or Romney personally, you can only go on what you see or are told. They don't espouse much different policies so you're relegated to deciding who to support based on what you can quantify. That means voting based on measures like someone's race, religion, class, height/weight/hair, etc or any single or multiple combinations of them. It's a well established political principle to play off of this phenomenon and is known as "identity politics". And it works and it's clear why it works.

Discussion of issues and differing viewpoints has been relegated to the wayside while the constant chorus of "he's a muslim!" or some variation has become the rallying cry for the party. It's demeaning to those of us that want a higher level of discourse.

Are you trying to cover for Obama...or are you running a screen for Ron Paul's pandering to Islamists for campaign cash? Hard to tell who you're trying to carry water for some times.

Given the threat that Islam poses for this country, and western civilization in general, I'd say it is a "higher level of discourse". While that's only one of the critical issues at hand, at least it's "higher" than the recurrent, venal clamoring for drug legalization. Doping is bad. It leads to wife-beating and others social ills.

Are you trying to cover for Obama...or are you running a screen for Ron Paul's pandering to Islamists for campaign cash? Hard to tell who you're trying to carry water for some times.

Ron Paul lost. Yall keep telling me that he has lost and is irrelevant. So why is he the basis of every response to my posts, even when it has nothing to do with Ron Paul?

Sounds like most of yall just don't want to address the actual post content because you're wrong and have no counter arguments. If I was running cover for Obama, I'd do my best to bring as many voters to THIS forum as possible just so they could see what it means to align themselves with the average Republican voter's mentality. That would be the best possible thing I could do to help Obama if that was my goal.

Quote:

Given the threat that Islam poses for this country, and western civilization in general, I'd say it is a "higher level of discourse".

Here we go with the Holy War crap again. Sorry, but arguments over invisible sky men isn't a higher level of discourse. I thought America was so big and strong and exceptional, not quivering little girls worried about some goat herders 7000 miles away.

Quote:

While that's only one of the critical issues at hand, at least it's "higher" than the recurrent, venal clamoring for drug legalization. Doping is bad. It leads to wife-beating and others social ills.

Yeah Ive heard that cops are notorious for spousal abuse and infidelity.

Drug legalization affects Americans every day. You know that around 50% support full mj legalization and even more support medical legalization, right? So how about we talk about what affects Americans on a daily basis instead of invisible sky men?

Drug legalization affects Americans every day. You know that around 50% support full mj legalization and even more support medical legalization, right? So how about we talk about what affects Americans on a daily basis instead of invisible sky men?

You mean the invisible sky men who fly Boeing aircraft into our skyscrapers? Do you really think that legalizing drugs is a higher level of discourse than the dead and crippled at Fort Hood and elsewhere?

You mean the invisible sky men who fly Boeing aircraft into our skyscrapers?

NEVER FORGET!!!!

Just don't mention that more US soldiers have been killed since 9/11 than all those people killed on 9/11. Smart policy there.

Quote:

Do you really think that legalizing drugs is a higher level of discourse than the dead and crippled at Fort Hood and elsewhere?

Shall I post the myriad of articles daily about people and animals being shot by cops during drug raids? Or parents losing their kids because they smoke weed? Or kids killed by flashbangs? Or the fact that half of our entire prison population is DRUG offenses. Or otherwise very productive people that are one illegal search away from losing their careers over a plant? Which do you really think matters to more Americans in every day life? The cop down the street that may shoot them if their cell phone looks like a gun in the dark or a goat herder living in a cave in Asia?

Shall I post the myriad of articles daily about people and animals being shot by cops during drug raids? Or parents losing their kids because they smoke weed? Or kids killed by flashbangs? Or the fact that half of our entire prison population is DRUG offenses. Or otherwise very productive people that are one illegal search away from losing their careers over a plant? Which do you really think matters to more Americans in every day life? The cop down the street that may shoot them if their cell phone looks like a gun in the dark or a goat herder living in a cave in Asia?

Whoa...! Better take a minute to get some Windex and wipe the spittle off your computer screen.

Relax...after all, you're the one who brought up "invisible sky men". I just pointed out that they fly Boeing aircraft into buildings and...if this weeks extradition of Muslim terrorists from the U.K. to here for trial is any indication...they continue planning to fly planes into our buildings. Invisible or not.

I understand that dope rules your mind, but I can't say that I didn't know that already. Surely you see, based on your outburst, that illegal drug use can make people come unhinged for no good reason. I'm glad you focused that on me, or on the police that have apparently reeled your kite in on at least one occasion in the past. Hope you don't show that side of you to your wife, or that girl you were playing around with at the RP campaign party.

To answer your question, I'd say most Americans are more worried about being a victim of a drug-related crime, than about contrived polls showing Obama is 10 points ahead or that most people want to see dope legalized. Most crime is drug-related, you know.

...
Question though. If there is a ban, does that affect new sales only?

It just depends on what the legislation is. The old one was just new sales.

California I think did registration and a few years later confiscation, or you must sell them out of state, but I could be wrong about that.

They could also "close" the "gunshow loophole".

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Frank, Frank, Frank, do yourself a big favor and research the anti-second amendment bills presented to congress for the past sixty years and note the authors- particularly note the PARTY affiliation of the authors of those anti-second amendment bills. Heck, you might even duplicate your findings if looking at state bills.

The Ds being anti 2A doesn't automatically make the Rs pro 2A. Rs have been pretty good at the state level with ccw the last 20 or so years, but what have they done at the national level? FOPA '86 with the ****** ******* **** ****** hughes amendment. What else?

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Whoa...! Better take a minute to get some Windex and wipe the spittle off your computer screen.

Relax...after all, you're the one who brought up "invisible sky men". I just pointed out that they fly Boeing aircraft into buildings and...if this weeks extradition of Muslim terrorists from the U.K. to here for trial is any indication...they continue planning to fly planes into our buildings. Invisible or not.

Actually, you brought up the "threat of Islam" and "pandering to Islamists" crap, not me. This was a thread about Romney's AWB record and I said nothing about Islam. You did. You sure you're not a closet pothead? Your memory apparently sucks worse than mine.

Quote:

I understand that dope rules your mind, but I can't say that I didn't know that already. Surely you see, based on your outburst, that illegal drug use can make people come unhinged for no good reason. I'm glad you focused that on me, or on the police that have apparently reeled your kite in on at least one occasion in the past. Hope you don't show that side of you to your wife, or that girl you were playing around with at the RP campaign party.

Considering how you keep harping on women in my life, I also have to wonder whether you're gay. Those that crusade the hardest against certain things tend to be involved in it privately. Maybe we should ask Larry Craig what he thinks?

Quote:

To answer your question, I'd say most Americans are more worried about being a victim of a drug-related crime, than about contrived polls showing Obama is 10 points ahead or that most people want to see dope legalized. Most crime is drug-related, you know.

Suddenly the threat of Islam isn't a part of the conversation anymore. Way to move the goal posts. Care to define what you mean by "victim of drug-related crime" or am I supposed to just project the most gruesome scenario of a crack addict raping a white woman that I can imagine? Would that also include the fact that the majority of drug-related crime, in the most general sense, is alcohol related? Care to tell us whether you consume alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs of any sort? They are all drugs.

Discussion of issues and differing viewpoints has been relegated to the wayside while the constant chorus of "he's a muslim!" or some variation has become the rallying cry for the party. It's demeaning to those of us that want a higher level of discourse.

I simply attempted to find out who you're carrying water for...Saint Ron, or the Golden Child...since they're both supporting Islam to the detriment of our nation. Don't even pretend that I'm the first guy here who has noted that, despite your jibbering Paulbot lunacy, you seem to be more than a mere closet supporter of Hussein.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G19G20

Considering how you keep harping on women in my life, I also have to wonder whether you're gay.

Sorry to ruin your feverish bong fantasies, but I'm not gay, though I'm not surprized that you'd float that idea. Dopers, such as yourself, quickly adopt an if-it-feels-good-do-it set of morals that allow then to engage in homosexuality and other form of sordid behavior, and like you, assume that the rest of the world sees morality the way they do.

Like your bragging here on this forum...bragging, mind you...about cheating on your wife with a bimbo you met at a RP campaign party. As if you assumed that all of us here would admire you for your philandery. So you assume that if someone doesn't agree with cheating on your wife, or beating your wife, as you do...he therefore must be "gay". That's sorta like adding 2+2 and coming up with "5".

Quote:

Originally Posted by G19G20

Suddenly the threat of Islam isn't a part of the conversation anymore. Way to move the goal posts. Care to define what you mean by "victim of drug-related crime" or am I supposed to just project the most gruesome scenario of a crack addict raping a white woman that I can imagine?

Okay...when you jeered at me about "invisible sky men", and I pointed out that they're flying, and planning to fly, Boeing aircraft into our skyscrapers, you responded with a spittle-spewing diatribe about police killing innocent babies and chihuahua dogs. So rather than risk saying something else about the terrorist threat Islam poses to the U.S. (that "higher level of discourse" you spoke of) and making you again feel like a chump...I opted to lower the "level of discourse" and talk about something you would feel more comfy with, i.e., dope and dope crime. I'm only trying to be accomodating...but you're so volatile. Thus my worrying that you treat your wife, and the other women in your life, that way. Are you getting any counselling for that?

Seems odd that the most "gruesome" crime scenario that populates your smoky mind is a white woman being raped. Aside from that picture of a battered woman you posted earlier in this thread, is rape something that fascinates you? I'm curious too as to why you think only white women are fitting victims for the crime of rape. It that your natural view of things, or is it a result of the KKK type indoctrination that RP delegates get in your world?

The Ds being anti 2A doesn't automatically make the Rs pro 2A. Rs have been pretty good at the state level with ccw the last 20 or so years, but what have they done at the national level? FOPA '86 with the ****** ******* **** ****** hughes amendment. What else?

In the last twenty years, if we get any recourse and relief from gun control on the national level it is always lead by the Republicans. The Republican platform, leadership and base have only become more pro-2A.

Here's some that come to mind:
Protecting gun owners and dealers privacy rights with the Tiahrt Amendment and Privacy Protection laws, Hunter Protection laws, "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” and investigating Fast and Furious.

Defeating the old and proposed new AW bans, National Park and public housing firearms bans, UN treaty gun control, and banning gun shows, private gun transfers and sales.

Feel free to post more if I left anything out.

For gun owners - the problem is liberal anti-2A Democrats - predominantly Obama and the Democrat leadership in congress. The threat to our RKBA is always initiated and lead by the Democrats who are proudly, and aggressively, anti-2A and their platform and positions have only become more so.

Republicans created a pro-2A majority on the Supreme Court that resulted in the Heller and McDonald decisions. The Republican platform includes appointing more pro-2A Supreme Court Justices like Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts.

Four US Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg) will be 80 or older, and two, Thomas and Alito above 65, by the end of Obama's second term. He could likely appoint 4 more Justices if he is re-elected - all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come. An anti-2A Court would be free to re-define and dismantle the RKBA out of existence. The current anti-2A Justices have already stated their intention to do exactly that.

Obama appointed anti-2A Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. Given the opportunity he will do it again. All they need is one more like minded Justice to get a majority of five anti’s and implement their stated agenda through the courts.

If that happens we’ll never see a pro-RKBA victory again in our lifetime.

So who would you prefer to appoint up to four more Justices - the Republicans or the Democrats?